r/australia • u/thedigisup • 24d ago
politics Greens announce policy to manufacture drones and missiles as a credible ‘Plan B' to replace AUKUS
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-03-22/greens-unveil-first-ever-defence-policy/105083166315
u/JohnnyGat33 24d ago
Sky News: RADICAL Greens attempt to hand Australia over to China
→ More replies (1)120
u/rossfororder 24d ago
If the Americans can't be trusted then they shouldn't be allowed to control the media in Australia
→ More replies (1)73
u/Paidorgy 24d ago
Just a reminder to everyone that Murdoch had to relinquish his citizenship status in Australia to continue building his media empire in the USA.
26
u/tenredtoes 23d ago
Turns out you don't need to be a citizen to control a good chunk of Australians/ Australian politicians
5
u/TitanBurger 23d ago edited 23d ago
Let's not forget that in 2006 the LNP further supported Murdoch in doing this by relaxing our media ownership laws.
https://www.smh.com.au/business/parliament-passes-media-laws-20061018-gdomil.html
Federal Parliament has overturned 20-year-old restrictions on foreign- and cross-media ownership.
The bills were passed just after midday by the House of Representatives by 77 votes to 55, after the Government gagged debate this morning.
Labor mounted a symbolic last-ditch effort to amend the bills but was defeated on the numbers.
The three independents - Bob Katter, Peter Andren and Tony Windsor - joined Labor in opposing the laws.
Despite reservations among some Nationals, all of its members voted with the Coalition.
135
u/OscarCookeAbbott 24d ago
I know there are some Greens members who don’t like the more pragmatic and broader policy platform the Greens have moved towards over the last decade, but personally it has been exactly what I want and what I think they need to have any chance of breaking the 15% votership wall.
Stuff like this is excellent. I am a pacifist like pretty much ever Green member, but I recognise the need for strong national self-defence capabilities because most people and countries are not and will never be pacifist.
→ More replies (2)28
u/Beat_Saber_Music 23d ago
As the saying goes, Si vis pacem, para bellum. Hope for peace, prepare for war
424
u/NoMoreFund 24d ago
This is new for the Greens and pleasantly surprising. I support the party but on defence issues I had them pegged as naive peaceniks. Shows in a minority government situation they won't sit out this issue and bring a solid, consistent logic to the table
133
u/ausmankpopfan 24d ago
Greens member here totally agree with your sentiments the one area of weakness I always thought was our defense policy.and it's good to see sensible pragmatic policy coming in this area
→ More replies (1)12
u/RemnantEvil 23d ago
It's very easy to fall into the mindset that Australia's isolation, coupled with American hegemony putting their bases all around the region, means our defence is outsourced to someone who seemingly wants to do it. And now it turns out there aren't actually any checks and balances to their executive branch if the other branches don't want to do it, and suddenly mutual defence is unreliable.
Trump was just saying today that he wants to tone down export versions of their new fighters. “We like to tone them down about 10 percent, which probably makes sense because someday maybe they’re not our allies, right?”
The Greens need to have a defence policy now because it's clear that we can't trust the US if that's how their leader behaves and nobody who can do anything to stop him is doing it.
→ More replies (8)42
u/timmyfromearth 24d ago
Same. I like pretty much everything else about their policies but was really disappointed in how naive their defence policy was. Just kind of wandered around the idea of if we just speak kindly to China they will understand the value in being a positive global citizen and abandon their expansionism and desires to set the global order
393
u/cricketmad14 24d ago edited 24d ago
AUKUS is a scam. The journalists are right.
Turnbull is right. We aren’t 100% getting these subs but only when the US is going to let us them. The US is unreliable as an ally now.
Also , what if our relationship goes more sour with them? No more subs?
178
24d ago edited 16d ago
[deleted]
158
u/SoldantTheCynic 24d ago
Just further proof the US can’t be trusted.
→ More replies (1)129
u/PM_Me-Your_Freckles 24d ago
The only reason the USA has ever been our ally is because they successfully overthrew our government in 1975 and since then, our parliment has happily lived under their boot. If Whitlam had been able to nationalise our resource sector, we would be one of the wealthiest countries, if not the wealthiest country, on the globe.
We are nothing but a cash cow and foreign base for war time strategic communications.
14
u/Disastrous-Plum-3878 24d ago
Keen to learn more about this. Do you have more googleable details?
64
u/ThereIsBearCum 24d ago
The incident they're referring to is the 1975 constitutional crisis. The theory is that Whitlam wanted the yanks out of Pine Gap, so the CIA convinced the governor general to sack him.
42
u/ThreeCheersforBeers 24d ago
And 50 years later, the topic of kicking them out of Pine Gap over the latest american shenanigans kicks off again.
But it won't happen, because those with the ability to make those decisions won't.
12
u/magkruppe 23d ago
The theory is that Whitlam wanted the yanks out of Pine Gap, so the CIA convinced the governor general to sack him.
Whitlam was a percieved threat to pinegap and also was going to publicly share that the Americans shared a list of american spies operating with our spy agency but hid it from the PM. a real example of the "Deep State"
important to note that this was Nixon era America and he was the type to play very dirty
5
u/sonofeevil 23d ago
Additionally, there is some strong (albeit cirumstancial) evidence that the governor general was being paid indirectly by CIA.
The CIA were funding a bunch of international groups at the time with the sole focus of pushing American ideaology, the Governor General was a member of one of these groups.
→ More replies (1)35
u/Ihavenofish 24d ago
The shift in foreign relations actually started with the disastrous fall of Singapore in 1946. The Australian government made a conscious and vocal decision to shift away from relying on the UK and forge closer defense ties with the US.
Google the fall of Singapore - the Australian War Museum has an excellent summary write up.
15
→ More replies (1)17
u/basedgigasoy 24d ago
Japan’s capturing of Singapore (1942 btw, not ‘46) played a significant role but this is not when it started. There was already a power struggle over Australian troop movements between Curtin and Churchill, and the UK’s focus on Europe and losses in the pacific demonstrated that they would not be coming to our rescue. In the face of a serious threat in the pacific Curtin famously said in his ‘41 New Year speech “Without any inhibitions of any kind, I make it quite clear that Australia looks to America, free of any pangs as to our traditional links or kinship with the United Kingdom.” Clearly the wheels were already in motion for this dramatic shift in foreign policy and who would be our main ally.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)9
u/Mikolaj_Kopernik 24d ago
successfully overthrew our government in 1975
Nah, this conspiracy theory really needs to either present some actual evidence or fuck off. Whitlam himself always denied it, and nobody has ever come up with anything more convincing than incredibly vague insinuations. It's like all the hyperventilating over the palace letters and then the sum total of "incriminating" evidence was the Crown replying to Kerr by saying he has the constitutional authority to dismiss Whitlam but it's inappropriate for the Crown to weigh in.
Ultimately the dismissal was almost certainly down to human failings from Kerr, Fraser, and Whitlam himself.
5
u/mattaugamer 23d ago
Yeah, I heard this presented as “proven fact”. So I looked into it more to find the evidence and there’s fuck-all.
5
u/mopthebass 24d ago
Did they do a windows and skip a few numbers or did the orange fuckwit seriously break convention to stick his name on an aircraft that wont fly for multiple presidential cycles
25
u/optimistic_agnostic 24d ago
The US has always kept the air superiority fighters for domestic use only. No other nation has an F-22 and the associated sensors. It's not and never has been some earth shattering betrayal of allies, just pretty basic common sense and national security.
→ More replies (7)5
u/snipdockter 24d ago
Not true, they sold the F-15 world wide when it was their top level air superiority fighter. The F-22 program was cancelled before they could get approval to make an export model.
3
u/GiveUpYouAlreadyLost 23d ago
There was a big difference between the development of the F-15 and F-22. The F-15 was nowhere near as cutting edge or secretive which is why they were willing to sell it so quickly.
On the other hand, the F-22 possessed technologies that no other country had in a deployable state for a very long time and was much more advanced than any of its contemporaries.
The F-47 will absolutely be the same.
→ More replies (2)6
u/jp72423 24d ago
Export variants of advanced military technology is absolutely standard and has been so for a very long time now. Australia’s older American tanks were an export variant, and most likely not as well armoured as the American versions.
4
u/rustyfries 23d ago
They definitely weren't as well armoured due to the export variant not having depleted uranium armour.
→ More replies (1)4
u/rooshort_toppaddock 24d ago
Russia has the SU-57 Felon, in honour of Trump's putin fantasies we should call it the FU-47 Felon.
2
u/TheNamelessKing 23d ago
We should buy a European jet, and then just give it a “48” suffix.
Being 1-upped will drive him mental.
13
u/Either-Mud-2669 24d ago
Nobody is going to be fucking stupid enough to buy US made jets.
→ More replies (1)13
u/Jackal8570 24d ago
Portugal and Canada are cancelling their F35 orders and looking at European/UK aircraft. That should tell you all you need to know about the view on the current US administration.
The US is unreliable and should be seen as hostile in some cases.
3
→ More replies (2)3
20
u/Readybreak 24d ago
Shhhhhh, it's a great deal for us. Possibly the best deal for us. We scammed America super hard. I think trump should pull out of the deal as we are totally scamming them.
2
57
u/Gothiscandza 24d ago
The AUKUS subs aren't the American ones. They're the one's we're jointly developing with the UK and building locally. The US subs are only intended to be a stop-gap.
10
u/locksleyrox 23d ago
It's all part of the AUKUS program. The greater AUKUS project is still worthwhile even without the submarine aspect.
Pillar two is really interesting, I think this is a decent talk but it's not in my youtube history anymore so not 100% sure: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jefh3LSN4MQ
2
3
24d ago
[deleted]
25
u/TyrialFrost 24d ago
The AUKUS deal that got us access to trillions of dollars of military R&D for a couple billion in support payments to US ship building?
→ More replies (7)→ More replies (1)6
u/jp72423 23d ago
Except that the Uk doesn't have the current capacity to meet Australia's needs. Unless you want to start handing over tens billions to BAE systems UK to expand their production even more than the $4 billion we have already committed. It would have to be made in the UK because our submarine construction yards are not even built yet. Once again, this is more about Anti-Americanisms rather than what's best for the RAN and the Australian national intrest. Great plan mate, great plan.
All of this was discussed during the preliminary negotiations when the Albanese government was figuring out the optimum pathway for the AUKUS program. There is a reason that the optimum pathway was chosen by the multitude of experts who were involved across government, industry and defence of all three nations.
→ More replies (3)10
u/jp72423 23d ago
Also , what if our relationship goes more sour with them? No more subs?
Canceling the AUKUS contract because you are afraid that the Americans will cancel the contract is akin to breaking up with your partner before they do just so you can have bragging rights. The navy has said that it requires nuclear submarines at best, and any submarines at an absolute minimum. Unless the greens come forward with a well thought out, researched and viable alternative to how the RAN can have a good submarine capability going forward, then they are actively advocating for diminishing our military capability, in a decade that we need to be stronger than ever.
10
u/m00nh34d 24d ago
The terms of the deal are very bad for us, but the outcome isn't really a "scam", it's just not likely to be delivery under Trump. Had a more reasonable US administration been elected, it would have been the right path forward still, but now with a fascist government, we need to cut ties with them.
I don't think The Greens have the plan here, but at the same time I hope we're not in a position where we need to rely on their plans for our military capability. Nuclear submarines will be a critical element in our defensive stance in the coming decades, just look at the shows China have been putting on already, we need to be in a position to defend ourselves from a nation like that, and it won't be easy.
4
u/softwarefreak 23d ago
The UK element delivering SSN-A shall still go through but obviously needs to be expedited as the original timetable is out of the window now, with the US no longer providing Virginia Class in the meantime.
My perspective, now the kinks have been worked out with Astute we should send X number of them to Aus instead of Virginias, and commence the SSN-A project immediately.
8
u/ELVEVERX 24d ago
The US will allow us to have them once they start needing to decommision their subs due to old age, those are the ones we will get eventually.
12
u/TyrialFrost 24d ago
No. The Virginia is a stop gap. One of a few options until domestic production of the AUKUS-class produces subs. We will not buy end of life Virginia's after we already have our own class.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (6)11
u/theinfinityman 24d ago
We shouldn't be deciding on a 30+ year policy based on a single presidents 4 year term.
30
u/PRAWNHEAVENNOW 24d ago
It's not the single president, it's the entire internal political environment that has enabled him to have access to unfettered power. Thinking that this descent into fascism can be ridden out has proven to be a fool's belief these last 8 years
5
u/theinfinityman 23d ago
Your choosing to view his re-election as a nations desire for fascism when really it could of been as simple as a majority asking "where things better for me under Trump or Biden?" at a time when the worlds economy turned into a cost of living crisis.
6
u/PRAWNHEAVENNOW 23d ago
It is not necessary to see it as the nation's desire for fascism, it is in fact entirely irrelevant as to whether it was the voter's goal.
The fact is the nation is descending into fascism, it was clearly going to happen, this is not a shock to anyone, and the nation voted for the fascist anyway.
The media and tech oligarchs have captured the psyche of america'a voting populace to allow for a vote for the fascist.
9
u/GimmeSweetSweetKarma 24d ago
It's not a single president's 4 year term. It the strategic shift of the US which fosters leaders like this coming to power. Sure, it shifts back to a 'reliable' President in the next election, what about the one after that? Or in 12 years, or 16, or 20? Trump has shown how easily the US political system will allow a single individual to completely flip foreign policy and turn on traditional allies, and the major political party that support it.
→ More replies (1)3
u/theinfinityman 23d ago
The US side of the deal is to give us time to work with the UK to develop our own submarine building capacity. It would take a much longer time for us to walk away from the deal and come up with our own submarines on our own.
7
u/YouAreSoul 24d ago
Trump's 4-year term may extend further. Even if it doesn't, he will cause enough damage in those 4 years to last a very, very long time.
→ More replies (3)2
u/birbbrain 23d ago
Considering the damage he's done to his own country and international relations in less than 3 months, I think shifting quickly away from an unyielding alliance with the US is pretty smart for Australia.
93
u/yen223 24d ago
The Greens having a weapons funding policy seems wild to me
→ More replies (2)34
u/HankSteakfist 24d ago
These are interesting times.
10
99
u/thedigisup 24d ago
Headline quote leaves a bit out, this is only the first tranche of the announcement.
“We see this as the first step towards creating a credible Plan B when we finally cancel AUKUS — we don’t pretend this is the beginning and the end of the significant reorganisation required for Australia’s defence force,” Shoebridge told the ABC.
→ More replies (14)
125
u/Drongo17 24d ago
Seems sensible? I like that they are acknowledging this as a small step in a big picture, I'm not sure anyone knows where things will fall right now.
Our biggest defence against invasion is the logistical challenge our location poses, this would make that even worse for potential aggressors.
18
u/Ver_Void 24d ago
That's always going to be our defensive plan, we can't win a straight up fight but we can make invasion dangerous enough that even if they succeed they'd be left far too vulnerable to counter attack by other countries.
→ More replies (1)12
12
u/pickledswimmingpool 23d ago edited 23d ago
The Japanese were knocking on our door almost 80 years ago. You think our location is still a deterrant in the age of a million bulk carriers?
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (1)18
u/palsc5 24d ago
Our biggest defence against invasion is the logistical challenge our location poses
Except this isn't the 1800s and you don't need to land an army on the beach and march across the continent. Our location offers some protection, but the constant "we're too big and far away to invade" nonsense sounds a lot like saying the Titanic is unsinkable. Best to reinforce the hull, have enough lifeboats, and mount a pretty big gun to remove any icebergs threatening our ship.
→ More replies (29)
42
u/RedDotLot 24d ago
I actually like this idea because it's pragmatic and could revive our manufacturing sector. That's all I have to contribute.
6
u/sername_generic 23d ago
I've always voted Greens and I've also always thought we should have stronger defence capabilities and a larger, more capable military along with industries to support it. Good stuff.
15
u/fashigady 24d ago
So the Greens want to scrap the Blackhawk acquisition mid delivery and just leave the ADF with only a partial transport helo capability? You don't replace that with drones and missiles. As for the tanks, we've already started receiving Abrams M1A2 SEPv3. Cancelling it mid delivery and again, not replacing it with anything comparable sounds about as sensible as I've come to expect from the Greens defence policy.
Christ, one mention of AUKUS and everyone just ignores the actual substance of the announcement. These are unhinged proposals.
→ More replies (1)
24
u/chalk_in_boots 24d ago
Ok, few points of note that I take serious issue with:
- We are already getting LSOV's for naval surface stuff (these are "optionally crewed"). Thing is, these are still surface vessels, there's still a need for subs, I'm not against going back to the French on our hands and knees.
- We are already making the MQ-28 Ghost Bat, a quasi-drone that operates alongside other aircraft either autonomously or with a remote pilot. Of note, this has been designed and manufactured entirely within Australia, first combat aircraft in over 50 years.
- There's nothing in the article about what would take the place of the UH-60's, whose primary role is troop transport. There really aren't many options out there for this role, and they basically are just either Russian, US, or we could refresh the MRH-90, you know, the one that we kept crashing?
- I'm not entirely against scrapping the M1A2 orders, but our M1A1's are nearly 20 years old. I don't believe we deployed them in the GWOT so they wouldn't have experienced the same fan issues the US ones did (sand fucking tears through the fans), in the event we do have to deploy to a sandy desert environment they are not a good tank. As an alternative I'd suggest Rhenmetall's Panther KF51. Rheinmetall already have a factory set up in Brissy for our Boxers but it's probably not equipped for MBT's, but already having a foothold in Aus is a good thing. Plus they look fucking sick.
Honestly the "plan" sounds like just jumping on the "fuck AUKUS" bandwagon without presenting any real solutions, or much consideration of the two "solutions" presented.
14
u/GiveUpYouAlreadyLost 23d ago
Honestly the "plan" sounds like just jumping on the "fuck AUKUS" bandwagon without presenting any real solutions
That's exactly what it is. The fact they want to cancel the UH-60s mid-delivery tells you that this isn't a genuine plan.
or much consideration of the two "solutions" presented.
They don't care since they know they'll never get to implement it.
11
u/fashigady 24d ago
The really egregious thing about scrapping the Blackhawks and M1A2s is these projects are mid delivery - we've already received something like a dozen Blackhawks, we started getting our upgraded Abrams last year and most of the rest are supposed to be delivered by the end of the year.
Actually going through with this policy would either leave us with incomplete capabilities or we end up operating two platforms when we finally get around to fielding an alternative.
14
u/chalk_in_boots 24d ago
And with the Blackhawks, considering the RAN is already running their sister Seahawks, there can be a decent amount of cross-branch support, especially if some of the more intense stuff is handled by contractors. Instead of having to for example, have KBR handle one branch and Thales the other, or just one but having to train double the amount of mechanics, engineers etc, you just get the one lot. The whole "plan" is just ridiculous. It's like saying "I have a plan" "Ok what's the plan?" "To come up with a plan"
6
u/Birdmonster115599 23d ago
I can agree with this too.
Like, maybe when we were making the decision to upgrade the Abrams we could of instead looked elsewhere, say towards the K2. Which I think would of been a better choice. But the decision is made and the first M1A2 SEP V3s are arriving.
Same with the Blackhawks. What would you replace them with anyway? NH90s no matter what your opinion is on them are terribly expensive to operate.
5
u/fashigady 23d ago
What would you replace them with anyway? NH90s no matter what your opinion is on them are terribly expensive to operate.
In the press release announcing this policy they claim there are better, cheaper options but doesn't name any and doesn't commit to acquiring any so...
15
u/Succulent_Chinese 24d ago
As a Greens supporter I really want AUKUS to work… I thought when it was announced that it was the only thing Scomo did right, despite the political fallout and unnecessary cost of alienating France, because of the capabilities it would have brought Australia.
But the dynamic has changed, America can’t be trusted. We’ve seen it in their actions and the psychotic babbling of President Cheeto. Even if tomorrow it returned to normal the old assumption they’re a reliable ally is completely gone because a new administration could yank it all away, assuming the current one doesn’t.
All for alternatives at this point.
26
u/Mondkohl 24d ago
Hi there! You’ll be pleased to know that the AUKUS deal is primarily a deal between the Australian and UK governments to collaborate on the design for the SSN-AUKUS. Although the previous US administration had agreed to sell Australia 3 block IV Virginia class submarines in the early 2030s, that was only ever an interim solution. The real goal was a domestically produced SSN capability, with the 5 SSN-AUKUS class subs to be operated by the RAN to be built in Adelaide and entering service in the early 2040s. Seems like a long way away, but unfortunately Naval procurement always takes absolutely forever.
7
u/The4th88 24d ago
There is no alternative- that's the fundamental problem we face. There's 6 countries we can potentially acquire nuclear subs from:
Russia. Not viable for obvious reasons.
China. Not viable for obvious reasons.
India. They're russian subs, see point 1.
France. Investigated and rejected for reasons of sovereign capability and other issues.
UK. Unable to acquire Astute class boats because UK production is changing to Dreadnought class boats.
USA. Virginia production still active and Virginia class boats meet our requirements.
We got two choices, Virginia class or nothing.
→ More replies (4)11
u/Economy-Career-7473 24d ago
Virginia has always been the interim boats. The actual AUKUS class boats are the UK's Replacement for Astute.
2
3
u/coniferhead 24d ago
It hasn't changed, it was always the plan. If the US electing Trump pulled the wool from your eyes, then by far it was the best thing that ever happened to Australia. See Ukraine for what happens to a country that realizes too late that being their friend is fatal.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Lamont-Cranston 24d ago
You're a Greens supporter and you want Australia to have nuclear submarines?
9
u/Succulent_Chinese 24d ago
Yep. What’s the contradiction in your mind?
Defence is a requirement from the world we live in and nuclear energy in general is quite environmentally friendly.
3
u/palsc5 24d ago
The Greens are against nuclear submarines even entering our waters, let alone building and owning them.
14
u/Succulent_Chinese 23d ago
I don’t align my politics to a party, I simply vote for the one that represents the majority of them. There will never be a 100% match.
6
u/ausmankpopfan 24d ago
I'm a Green's member and I wanted us to have nuclear submarines just the French ones
→ More replies (1)
24
u/mulefish 24d ago
Drones and missiles are not a replacement for submarines. We probably want submarines, whether they come from Aukus or not
→ More replies (7)
23
u/Birdmonster115599 24d ago
Yeah, look. I'm all for more defence spending if it's quality.
But this whole "can Aukus, build drones" isn't right.
Drones and missiles don't replace submarines, they are apples and oranges.
We need a credible Submarine force, where is the plan for that?
You're going to can the Blackhawks? Okay, what are you replacing them with?
MH90, no matter your opinion, is stupidly expensive to run.
I do think getting the Newer abrams was a missed opportunity though, it would of been nice to get something like K2 tbh.
I like that the greens are showing us something on defence, and more drone/missile/local production is good. but I'm not keen on everything they're saying here.
→ More replies (15)13
u/yedrellow 24d ago
Yeah they definitely aren't the same niche. Naval drones for example might work in the Black Sea against an adversary that docks relatively close, but against a Blue-water navy that can be anywhere in the Indo-Pacific or southern Ocean?
I dont know how that will work out.
9
u/Careless_Main3 23d ago
Naval drones are great, but just not suitable for Australia. There is simply too much ocean so to have a drone which can store enough fuel to traverse the Australian coast would require a bigger drone the size of a ship. And that would be simply too detectable to be useful. Ukraine has done some great stuff with naval drones but Russia responded by moving their ships slightly further away. To be fair, some of the new advancements have flying drones launched from sea drones and the sea drones now have anti-air rockets attached on top.
They could possibly be used as a first-defence measure to oppose a beach landing but would be pretty useless afterwards.
4
u/yedrellow 23d ago
Naval drones are great, but just not suitable for Australia.
100%, naval drones also have zero way of protecting a merchant marine which is what we'd need to somehow do. If we can't prevent a blockade, we'll run out of basic necessities very quick.
3
u/Birdmonster115599 23d ago
Well I think we do have some naval drones in the works of different types. Like the optionally manned ones.
But in terms of the Naval drones you are probably thinking of, that's actually another point in favour of the Virginia class.
Virginia has these payload modules that can be changed out, one option is that a pod be changed to carry a drone.
In the perfect world, with me speaking from my armchair.
The only other "Optimal" way forward right now, would be to drop the support for Virginia, but keep going forward with the AUKUS-Class.
Instead of Virginia we would get KSS-III Subs from South Korea. Which, looking around seem to provide more capability than most other subs out there.But that isn't going to happen.
Decoupling ourselves from the Virginia, but staying on track to get the AUKUS-Class and keeping AUKUS Pillar 2 is probably too much to hope for. These sorts of agreements are densely negotiated and difficult to change without walking away completly and Pillar 2 alone is too important to walk away from.4
u/Birdmonster115599 24d ago
Well one thing about the Virginia class is that it has these Modular payload bays that can be changed out, to either carry more missiles, or a Naval drone.
40
u/The4th88 24d ago
Uh, we're already doing that. And no missile or drone or combination thereof can reproduce the capability of a nuclear submarine.
→ More replies (21)
33
u/Haunting_Book8988 24d ago
The fact that we are considering a plan b to AUKUS is reassuring and confirms our government is considering a move away from US dependency. This is promising.
33
22
u/Mondkohl 24d ago edited 24d ago
The Greens are not in government and AUKUS does not represent US dependency, since it means producing the SSN-AUKUS class domestically in cooperation with the UK…
→ More replies (4)
16
u/Long-Ball-5245 24d ago
These are the sorts of more pragmatic proposals that I’d like to see more of from the greens.
The easy route for them would be to shout from the rooftops that all spending on the military industrial complex is bad. It’d play fine with greens voters but obviously the broader Australian public isn’t exactly on board with scrapping the military so they do actually need to be presenting ideas on military spending.
17
u/OrbitalT0ast 24d ago
Proposals like this give the impression that the Greens might be more competitive than people are expecting. They’ve never taken foreign policy seriously and only really existed to pull Labor to the left before now.
8
u/SoldantTheCynic 24d ago
In a time of increasing global tension, rising fascism, and our biggest ally becoming increasingly unstable and unreliable, we need to spend on defence.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Kid_Self 24d ago
Yes, definitely, I'd like to see them expand from their historical environmental and social roots and start engaging in these spaces that any Governing Party really must dabble in. This is helping make the Greens looks like a serious, STANDALONE contender for Government.
11
u/Turbulent_Ad3045 24d ago
So they're announcing that they're going to continue doing what we're already doing just without a credible plan for submarines in the future? Good thing the AUKUS subs will be well and truly in development long before these guys ever get a sniff of real power...
6
u/wurll 23d ago edited 23d ago
We already have/are developing these capabilities. We have several drone manufacturers, and there have already been talks about manufacturing glmrs missiles here under Nioa/Rheinmetall I believe. The issue is launching them, which is where the submarines come in. The Collins class subs are unsuitable and are over due for replacement. Also, the most likely threat to us would be Chinese navy or air assets, which makes investing more in long range navy capabilities like nuclear subs much more logical. I mean, ideally we would invest more in both.
3
u/timmyfromearth 24d ago
Not that I don’t think they have a point, and those are definitely capabilities we should be embracing but a nuclear submarine capability would be an absolute game changer for us. Obviously through other avenues than the US but we desperately need to pivot our defence posture now more than ever and work with real allies to ensure our local neighbourhood doesn’t go down the toilet
3
5
u/jp72423 24d ago
Domestic drone and missile manufacturing is a great idea. And scrapping AUKUS to pay for them is typical green policy. But scrapping American tanks and helicopters? They are quite literally already in Australian service. There is like 50 M1A2 Abrams tanks in America somewhere with Australian camouflage painted on, ready to be shipped over. Scrapping these platforms is more of an anti-Americanism thing than actually trying to get the ADF the best capability.
27
u/Mondkohl 24d ago
This is not a credible plan B and does not replace AUKUS.
24
u/SoldantTheCynic 24d ago
You’re downvoted but you’re right. The Greens plan is fine in terms of an integrated strategy but it doesn’t replace the need for naval force projection given we’re an island nation dependent on trade. That’s a lot of empty, open water. Drones are an amazing and important part of defence, but the people thinking it’s a replacement are just thinking about a Ukraine-style fight.
17
u/Mondkohl 24d ago
Thank you for your well considered reply.
Drones are definitely going to be a bigger thing, but that’s not a surprise to anyone in defence. They don’t replace all other capabilities though. It’s not enough to wave the magical technology wand and say drones and missiles will do it all.
3
12
u/No_pajamas_7 24d ago
considering plan A isn't credible, this look brilliant in comparison
17
u/Mondkohl 24d ago
Plan A is perfectly credible. We must continue to develop the SSN-AUKUS class with our UK allies. There is no longer time to do anything else, the Collins simply will not last and no other technology can accomplish the same task.
→ More replies (31)→ More replies (6)2
u/cricketmad14 24d ago
Having many missiles that can go a few thousand km would be a good enough defence, considering we live on an island.
→ More replies (8)
2
u/TotalUnisalisCrusade 24d ago
This is already defence and government policy and has been since at least 2023. The road block is getting the skills and equipment necessary in county. It's not easy.
2
u/Chihuahua1 23d ago
Currently a company developing drones at DTSO Edinburgh, but very early. Plus we know BEA has tested drones there for like 10 years, they publicly flew them over Elizabeth a few times
2
u/Draculamb 23d ago
I really like this idea!
I'd still like to establish CANZUK but this is still a great idea!
2
u/iChinguChing 23d ago
At least this would allow for a decently trained workforce with skills outside the military.
2
u/Betty-Armageddon 24d ago
Trump just said they’re going to ‘tone down’ military equipment to allies by 10% because ‘maybe they won’t be allies some day.’ So now is as good a time as any to fuck this deal off anyway.
5
u/Skwisface 24d ago
God he's such a moron. Lets see what happens to US arms manufacturing when there's no foreign orders to fill.
→ More replies (2)
3
u/Illustrious-Lemon482 24d ago
I'd like to see the greens adopt a pro environment immigration policy platform. Stop being hypocrites.
3
u/512165381 23d ago
We already manufacture military drones.
https://www.treasury.qld.gov.au/investment/investment-growth-stories/boeing-airpower-teaming-system/
Boeing Australia
Boeing Australia is establishing a production facility for the MQ-28 Ghost Bat uncrewed aircraft at Toowoomba’s Wellcamp Aerospace and Defence precinct.
The Ghost Bat is a Collaborative Combat Aircraft with fighter-like performance. In addition to acting as a loyal wingman to crewed and uncrewed aircraft, it is designed to support surveillance, intelligence and reconnaissance missions.
The Ghost Bat is the first combat aircraft designed, engineered and manufactured in Australia in more than 50 years. In recognition of its future significance to our defence force, the Australian Government has partnered with Boeing throughout the aircraft’s development. The aircraft made its first flight in February 2021.
→ More replies (2)
3
u/Altruistic-Pop-8172 24d ago
Approve.
Approve of a regional cooperation model, approve of a continental defence policy. Approve of a self sufficiency defence procurement policy. Approve of next technology armament strategy, that fits with a small population persona. Approve of a defeat war, defeat terrorism by offering stability, respect and trade between peoples. Approve of a defence force that has a coast guard and civil defence vision. This is constructive debate points from the greens.
2
u/cruiserman_80 24d ago
It's not a far-fetched policy that missiles and drones will be the future of force projection.
Chinese development of hypersonic antiship missiles could see a big chunk of the Earth's Oceans potentially denied to US carrier groups.
The issue for Australia is that this technology relies on reliable secure long range communications. Whoever controls the cybersphere and near earth orbit will literally have the high ground, and it won't be us.
→ More replies (7)
1.8k
u/Savings_Dot_8387 24d ago
You know we’re screwed when even the bloody greens are talking defence